FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS QUARTERLY REPORT

The Chief=s responses to our Fourth Quarter 1997 and First Quarter 1998
reports are attached to this report. Most notably, the Bureau has translated the
Internal Affairs Division complaint form and explanatory brochure into several
languages, including Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Laotian, Vietnamese and
Cambodian. They are in the printing process and will be distributed through
normal channels. We predict that the one-time cost is worth the Bureau=s making
the complaint system more accessible to non-English speaking complainants.

We requested that the Bureau research the legal and policy questions
surrounding a complaint in which a suspect=s pager, cellular phone and
bulletproof vest were seized as evidence of suspected drug activity, even though
no weapons, drugs or paraphernalia were found on his person. (He was searched
incident to a jaywalk arrest.) PPB received a response from the District
Attorney=s office but have not yet received a response from the City Attorney=s
Office. (The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case involving issues
of search and seizure incident to minor violations, and we will monitor the
outcome.)

The communications training, based on the Crisis Intervention Training (CIT)
program, was to have been incorporated into this year=s in-service training, but
was removed along with other training segments when Operation 80, the Bureau=s
recruiting program, was implemented.

IAD / PIIAC ACTIVITY

I. Revised PPB General Orders

PPB implemented six General Orders revising the Complaint Investigation and
Disciplinary process. We have reviewed similar written policies in other U.S.
law enforcement agencies and note that PPB=s are among the strongest and most
comprehensive. Some notable changes include a broader criteria by which officers
are identified for Command Review (now called Behavior Review) under the Early
Warning System. Previously, Command Review was triggered only by an officer=s
complaint history. Experts in the field of police conduct and complaint
investigation issues agree that an Early Warning System (EWS) is a key component
in fostering a high level of police accountability.

With the new EWS General Order, supervisory review will also be triggered by
such factors as motor vehicle accidents, failure to appear in court, and tort
claims. This latter component is especially important, since citizens who file
tort claim notices alleging police misconduct do not always pursue a complaint
through the Internal Affairs process. Previously the Bureau had not incorporated
review of tort claim or lawsuit information into their police accountability
practices. This is a welcome change, one that can be considered progressive,
since research shows that almost all other large police forces do not adequately
track or use tort information.

Bifurcation is now in place, which allows PPB to better address
peripheral issues developed as a result of a complaint investigation. Typically
these issues do not directly affect the finding on the main allegations. For
example, a Use of Force complaint investigation may reveal that an officer=s use
of force was appropriate, but that the officer did not properly document the
action. Bifurcation allows the peripheral issue to be handled without the entire
complaint reflecting a ASustained@ finding.

A new finding category has also been added. Not Sustained with
Debriefing addresses those situations in which an officer has not violated a
Bureau policy -- and therefore the complaint is not sustained -- but the
incident may represent an opportunity for a supervisor to discuss alternatives
in a non-punitive manner. In the past, no such mechanism existed and a
supervisor might or might not discuss a particular incident with an officer.
This finding represents a more formalized method of providing for an incident
debriefing.

II. Human Rights Watch Report

Human Rights Watch, based in Washington, D.C. and New York City, released a
lengthy report, AShielded From Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in
the United States of America.@ This report, available on the internet and in
book form, was a culmination of a two-year study in which Portland was one of
fourteen cities reviewed. The good news is that the report states that
Portland=s civilian oversight agency Afunctions better than most reviewed by
Human Rights Watch@ and the Adepartment@ (PPB) has made some progress in the
past few years. However, the report goes on to claim that human rights abuses
continue in Portland and accountability is sometimes lacking, but refers only to
specific incidents, all more than five years old, to support this particular
thesis.

III.Research Brief: AAchieving Police Accountability

Dr. Samuel Walker, a national expert on civilian review who testified before
City Council in 1996, named Portland as one of three cities that has Aproactive
citizen review@ in his recently published research paper. He cites the
importance of ongoing policy review as a component of citizen oversight, and the
existence of an Early Warning System as progressive, but necessary, police
practice.

IV. Cases Appealed / Monitored

During the second and third quarters 1998, PIIAC advisors accepted 4
new appeals. For the first time in years, advisors have not met monthly due
to a decline in appeals. We do not believe we have enough information to analyze
this trend.

PIIAC #98-04: (Held over from first quarter). The appellant claimed
that an officer in the Bureau=s Domestic Violence unit unduly influenced his
wife to apply for a restraining order, and the he was falsely arrested for
assault. Advisors affirmed the IAD investigation and PPB finding, noting that
officers documented specific injuries and testimony that mandated an arrest.
Advisors also agreed with PPB=s conclusion that the DVRU officer acted
correctly.

PIIAC #98-05: The appellant, a street preacher, complained that
officers arrested him for disorderly conduct while he was preaching. He alleged
officers had no evidence of prohibited conduct and therefore the arrest was
false. He also stated that officers were discourteous because they would not
allow him to remove his raingear during transport. IAD had declined the case
following preliminary review, which showed a complaint phoned in by a citizen,
officer reports, and a notice that the District Attorney=s office had filed a
complaint in the matter. Advisors voted to affirm the IAD declination, noting
that this was an issue for the courts to decide. An appeal to City Council is
pending.

PIIAC #98-06: After reviewing the preliminary PIIAC audit report that
noted significant investigative deficiencies, IAD voluntarily reopened this case
for additional investigation prior to the advisory hearing. The appellant
alleged that officers used excessive force and abusive language, and damaged his
property. We were recently notified that this additional work has been completed
and is available for our review.

PIIAC #98-07: The appellant and her teenage daughter are
Washington residents. The daughter was stopped in the I-5 Terwilliger curves for
speeding, and her vehicle towed for failure to provide proof of insurance. The
complaint is that the officer had the girl walk alone, at night, to a local
store. The mother felt this was negligent. In his interview, the officer stated
that the girl was not in any danger taking the particular route she did.
Advisors affirmed PPB=s exoneration of the officer because no General Order
requires any specific duty to individuals whose vehicles are towed. Advisors did
note concerns about this case, and address the policy issue later in this
report.

We monitored an additional 27 closed IAD investigations. We monitor
all closed cases that fall into the following categories: use of force,
disparate treatment, complaints with sustained findings, and cases that went to
PPB=s Review Level Committee. Cases with less significant allegations are not
routinely audited unless they are appealed.

Cases reviewed for monitoring reflected the following types of
allegations:

Property 3

Use of Force 19

Conduct 10

Disparate Treatment 1

Communication 10

Performance 0

Procedure 12

The findings reflected the following:

Unfounded 6

Exonerated 14

Insufficient Evidence 8

Sustained 6

Suspended 2

Declined 2

Sustained complaints had been initiated both internally (Bureau members) and
externally (from citizens). Allegations that were Sustained included improper
handling of property (theft/loss), officer inappropriately drawing and pointing
firearm, failure to document handcuffing, conducting personal business while on
duty without supervisory permission, violation of state law (off-duty),
untruthfulness in an IAD investigation.

V. Timeliness and IAD Statistics

IAD statistics covering January 1 through September 30, 1998 reflect that 257
new complaints were received in IAD. Of those, 106 (41%) have been closed out,
58 (approximately 43%) declined. 151 of the 1998 complaints remain open. In
1997, 275 complaints were received, 150 of which remain open.

Time lags continue to be problematical in all phases of the investigative
process. Of the cases we audited, we noted time spans of 1 2 week - 25 months,
with an average of approximately 11.5 months. [We note that this statistic
reflects our monitoring of mostly IAD cases which are more complex than those
assigned to precinct-level investigators. Our statistics do not reflect overall
Bureau averages.]

Of the cases that were closed most quickly, most were declined or suspended.
IAD estimates that the average length of time for IAD investigations is closer
to 12 - 14 months. Because IAD works more complex cases, and those with more
significant allegations than precinct-level investigations, the importance of
reducing lengthy investigative time frames is especially critical. The
effectiveness and credibility of the Bureau=s complaint investigation process is
significantly at risk if it does not do more to identify the causes of the
timeliness problems and implement solutions.

Officers report not being informed about complaints lodged against them for
months, then frequently more months go by after their interview before they are
informed of the findings. Complainants have contacted the Mayor=s office to
report significant delays in return phone calls from IAD or with case
investigation, and they are understandably frustrated. In our monitoring of
closed cases we observe as much as ten months= delay between initial complaint
intake and the beginning of officer interviews. No matter how skilled
investigators are, excessive delays are a handicap that adversely affect
investigative quality. Officer performance or conduct problems may very well go
undetected in a timely fashion. The Bureau exposes itself to potential liability
from Apattern and practice@ claims.

Because PIIAC audits focus on closed IAD cases, assessing the reasons for
current timeliness problems can be difficult. We can easily observe where
delays have occurred, but not necessarily why. IAD investigators do not
routinely include explanations for case delays in the investigative files,
despite the Chief=s assurance that such a PIIAC recommendation would be
implemented.

Although the Monitoring Subcommittee has traditionally reviewed closed IAD
investigations, PIIAC City Code language does not preclude monitoring the
progress of open investigations. PIIAC may wish to incorporate open cases in
their audit routine, similar to external auditing practice in San Jose and Los
Angeles. Comprehensive investigator work product reviews are labor-intensive and
we doubt whether the Bureau currently has the supervisory resources to undertake
these. PIIAC does not.

The following components must be in place if investigations are to be timely:

1. Accountability must consistently be emphasized from the top on
down.

If PPB administrators do not insist on timely investigations and adjudication
and provide IAD with the needed support, Bureau members receive mixed messages
about accountability. Twelve to fourteen months to investigate a use-of-force
complaint should be deemed unacceptable. Timely complaint investigation and
adjudication should be one of the criteria tied to performance reviews of
management; IAD should monitor which precincts and divisions are consistently
tardy with investigations and/or adjudication.

2. PPB/IAD must improve IAD recruitment and staffing.

IAD should be fully staffed with as little down time as possible. IAD is
selective about the sergeants recruited to work in that division and require
that the investigators have been sergeants for a prescribed length of time. What
this means, though, is that IAD investigators are often quickly promoted,
sometimes within just a few months of moving into IAD. Often the resulting
vacancies are not filled for months.

At one point this past summer IAD was reduced to two investigators even with
a newly restored fifth investigator position. Those two investigators found
themselves mired in complaint intakes to the point they could not work on actual
investigations. IAD seems to always be short-staffed. Although they are once
again authorized at five positions (and have been in the past), they rarely have
all five positions filled. Currently, one investigator has been detailed away
from IAD with no one taking his place. We are told IAD is looking at staffing
options and we endorse this heartily. PPB should explore options such as advance
recruiting (maintaining a list of prospective applicants), having intakes done
by one or more employees who do not work on investigations, providing additional
funding for the mediation center to increase the number of complaints that can
be mediated, etc.

3. IAD should continue to examine ways to improve timeliness, and secure
any needed resources for optimal case management.

Timeliness goals have not been met for years, although Capt. Bennington is
optimistic that the new General Order=s stated goal of ten weeks will help. He
reports that he has seen some recent improvement in precinct turnaround times;
precinct investigators do not have the heavy caseloads as in IAD. IAD is also
hoping to select a case management computer software vendor by January 1999.
Such software would certainly be useful -- not only for case management but for
tracking complaint trends and patterns -- but in the meantime IAD should explore
additional ways to improve case management. As part of the equation, IAD needs
to identify and reduce any problems or practices that unnecessarily delay
cases.

We reviewed several cases in which long periods of time elapsed between the
time all interviews were completed, and when the general summary was written up
-- the final activity before the complaint can be sent for adjudication. In one
case, an entire year elapsed between the time all interviews were
completed and the time the general summary was prepared. The file contained no
information explaining the delay.

Several common investigative protocols may assist IAD investigators with case
management. We recommend they do the following:

Have timeliness goals for all phases of the investigative
process. An overall, formalized timeliness goal is beneficial, but it is
also important to have a target goal for each phase of the investigation. For
example, how soon should investigators get back to citizens following first
contact? What is a reasonable goal between case intake and first interviews? IAD
should have a way to average the lengths of time occurring in each phase of the
investigative process, so it can better identify if and when cases may be
unnecessarily delayed.

Cap the number of cases assigned to each investigator at any given
time, and retain unassigned cases to a Apending file@ to assign as investigators
are able to accept more work. For quite a long time, IAD investigators
have carried typical case loads of more than twenty cases. More recently we
understand the case load has increased to more than thirty. Balancing such a
caseload -- even if not all investigated simultaneously -- can still be
overwhelming both psychologically and logistically. With a manageable caseload
and an eye toward having a good balance of incoming and outgoing cases,
investigators may in fact experience overall improved timeliness. Those cases
that require less work or are nearly complete may be closed out more quickly;
investigators may determine more quickly which cases lack sufficient merit or
complainant cooperation to proceed with full investigation. (For example,
through the years we have observed cases ultimately suspended because a
complainant refused to provide witness information, medical records, etc. It is
better to know sooner than later if that is the case, so that IAD investigators
can move on.)

To feel in control of one=s own case load (i.e., requesting new case
assignments as one feels able to take them on), is important for morale. Such an
arrangement might also provide more flexibility for unexpected priority
cases.

We recommend that IAD investigators maintain a log of cases-in-progress
with notations as to what work remains on each, and review these weekly.
This need not be a cumbersome record-keeping, and is in fact a standard
investigative protocol. Currently IAD investigators review case progress
monthly, but this probably is not enough. The extra time taken for such
record-keeping and planning pays for itself, and becomes quite easy when it
becomes habit. The commander should also meet regularly with investigators to do
an open case review, and assist with setting priorities, determining
investigative strategy and case flow.

We also recommend that investigators have a specific deadline for
completing a general summary as soon as all interviews and evidence-gathering is
complete. It makes no sense to allow a nearly-completed investigation to
languish. Postponing the general summary writeup only makes the task more
difficult.

4. IAD investigators must be fully trained in how to conduct
investigations and manage cases.

PPB and IAD must ensure that investigators receive solid and consistent
training in both investigative technique and case management, both in- and
out-of-house. Investigators may or may not have acquired these skills in
previous assignments. Capt. Bennington explained that the investigators
individually have attended selected courses in addition to the annual PPB
two-day IAD course. He assists investigators one-on-one, looking at strengths
and weaknesses of a case. He is also looking for good training courses. We
strongly encourage these ongoing efforts.

VI Investigative Quality

In the audits conducted the past two quarters, we observed an increasing
inconsistency in investigative quality. Investigative quality and thoroughness
tends to be strongest in cases involving officer integrity issues, and we have
audited some excellent casework and interviews. In one case, the investigator
very skillfully developed information not only about the incident in question,
but also about an officer=s untruthfulness in an IAD interview.

However, quality has weakened with respect to citizen complaint
investigations.

In listening to interview tapes, we have noted the following weaknesses:

unnecessary leading questions, mostly in officer interviews;

unstructured interviews with a somewhat casual tone, in which officers are
allowed virtually uninterrupted narratives with very little close examination
or follow-up questioning;

abbreviated officer interviews, sometimes less than ten minutes with
officers accused of significant excessive or unauthorized use of force;

inaccurate or incomplete written summaries of interviews;

failure to routinely inquire about any potential witnesses;

uneven focus on complainant actions, sometimes to the neglect of officer
actions;

seeming lack of sufficient interview preparation.

These weaknesses in an interview can lead to an impression that the
investigator may have drawn premature conclusions about the complaint. The
investigator may appear to be overly amenable to whatever an officer says, or is
even subconsciously assisting an officer frame testimony.

We also monitored some cases in which evidence was not obtained that would
have enhanced the investigation. For example, we have previously requested that
booking photographs and Multnomah County Health Dept. Corrections Entry Progress
Form 111 routinely be obtained in cases where excessive force is alleged, but we
noted several case files with these missing. One appeal also lacked crucial
photographs or sketches of the location in question -- a significant aspect of
the complaint.

We note at least two cases in which the investigator expanded the
AInvestigator Observations@ portion of a report to compare and contrast
testimony, or highlight weaknesses in complainant testimony. We renew our strong
caution against this practice, because a well investigated and reported case
should be clear to a reader without this type of investigator assistance.
Appearing to judge the merits of a complaint should be strictly avoided by
investigators.

We have made recommendations in previous monitoring reports about all of the
concerns mentioned in this section. IAD made significant improvements after
their 1995 restructuring, especially in the area of investigative quality --
they cannot afford to let quality decline, even in the face of timeliness or
caseload constraints.

VII. Disposition Letters

IAD Capt. Bennington prepares disposition letters in a timely fashion, and in
an empathetic and friendly tone. However, the complainant is essentially told
the complaint finding and the definition of that finding. We recommend that the
letters provide more of the rationale for the finding. Complainants who believe
they were in the right deserve an explanation for the finding.

OTHER MONITORING ISSUES

I Adjudication

Several cases audited, particularly involving excessive force allegations,
reflected exonerations of officer actions that did not appear to be sufficiently
supported by evidence. One case was appealed to PIIAC, then voluntarily
withdrawn by IAD after an audit report identified investigative deficiencies.
Other cases reviewed had similar deficiencies and would most likely have been
returned for additional investigation or deliberation had they been appealed to
PIIAC.

Excessive force complaints are not always simple to evaluate, because
investigations frequently develop contradictory testimony with no corroborating
evidence or witnesses. But we have observed that some PPB commanders are more
apt than others to select a finding of AInsufficient Evidence@ in these
circumstances, which we believe is a more appropriate finding when no compelling
reason exists to weigh one version of testimony over another. It is our position
that a complainant=s allegations cannot be dismissed solely because that person
was arrested or cited, or because of factors like mental illness, alcohol/drug
influence, odd behavior, affiliations or the existence of criminal history.

In one case, the complainant alleged that he had been deliberately injured in
a punitive manner. The injury was, in fact, substantiated -- both by officer
testimony and through medical records. The officer=s version of events differed
from the complainant=s. The commanding officer, in his written rationale for
exoneration, said it was Ahis opinion@ that the officer=s version of events was
accurate. We note, however, the absence of significant corroborating testimony.
The commander further opined that the nature and location of the complainant=s
injuries Awere consistent@ with the officer=s account. What the commander did
not explain is upon what medical expertise he based his conclusion, or what
precluded the injuries from being medically consistent with the
complainant=s allegations. This written rationale would appear very weak
should it ever be subjected to cross-examination in a court of law. We also
wonder whether the IAD investigator or commander was even aware that the subject
officer had been alleged to have caused the exact same injury to a previous
complainant in a similar manner. In that second case, numerous citizen witnesses
corroborated the complaint; however, their testimony seems to have been
discounted in favor of officer testimony, as the finding was also AExonerated.@
While we do not expect investigators to inquire into other complaints or
allegations in an interview, or for adjudicators to decide the merits of a
complaint based upon the existence of a similar complaint, any possible
background information should be reviewed before an interview. The investigator
must maintain an open mind regarding the merits of a complaint.

II. Trend: Service Complaints

The Bureau can improve how it handles citizen complaints that do not fall
under IAD=s purview. These complaints may be described as Aservice
complaints.@

According to the new General Order pertaining to complaint handling,
AComplaints received from the citizens regarding the quality of service they
received from Bureau members may be resolved by a supervisor or manager of the
member=s RU as long as the complaint does not allege misconduct and the
complaint can be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Complaints so
resolved must be documented on a precinct/division Complaint Log . . . The
documentation must include the action taken to resolve the complaint. RU
managers will review the Complaint Log on a regular basis. Complaint logs should
be reviewed for complaints, trends, supervisor resolutions, etc. Complaint logs
will be retained at the RU according to the records schedule.@

The new General Order does not address how unresolved complaints
should be handled, nor does it specify how complaint-log review and analysis
should occur.

Service complaints can be difficult to categorize, since on some occasions
they may in fact constitute Afailure to act@ under misconduct guidelines.
However, they more frequently involve differences of opinion as to what extent
the Bureau should respond to a particular incident or concern. In one instance
that we know of, the complainant spoke to an aide in the Chief=s Office, who
referred him to Internal Affairs to file a complaint. Unfortunately the service
complaint was not an Internal Affairs (misconduct) matter, and the complainant
ultimately received a declination letter from IAD. This does not make sense, and
is bound to frustrate citizens.

We recommend that the Bureau examine ways that it can better resolve
service complaints, respond to constituent contacts, and track the effectiveness
of the new, related General Order. A police ombudsman may be one avenue. Such an
ombudsman might be housed in the Bureau, but would have to maintain a
professional and neutral distance. The ombudsman=s function would be to respond
to citizen concerns, liaison as necessary to resolve service complaints, or if
resolution is impossible -- obtain sufficient information to relay to the
citizen. We also recommend that citizens with service complaints be provided
written responses in a timely fashion. We are aware of several such
complaints in which a citizen has been dealt with only by telephone, and
sometimes by several different people. It can be difficult to coordinate
responses when no written account exists of how the matter was handled.

III. Policy Concern:Individuals whose cars are towed

In a PIIAC appeal that was reviewed this past quarter, a mother was upset
because her teenage daughter was left on her own after her vehicle was towed for
failure to provide proof of insurance. The mother=s concerns involved the
lateness of the hour (it had grown dark), the busy highway where the traffic
stop occurred (I-5 Terwilliger curves), and of course the girl=s age. Citizen
advisors were also concerned about the fact that the girl was out-of-state, in
possibly unfamiliar territory. Although the officer interviewed said that the
route she had to take to get to a public place was safe from traffic,
well-lighted, etc., advisors note the absence of any PPB policy addressing
officer responsibility to people whose vehicles are towed. (The General Order on
towing does address the officer=s responsibility with respect to the vehicle and
inventory.) We have heard anecdotal accounts from people with similar concerns.
While we would hope that officers would exercise sound judgment in ensuring the
safety of anyone left without transportation, there is no internal mechanism to
address situations where lapses of judgment may occur and someone is left in a
very vulnerable situation. We do not expect officers to transport people home,
although we would hope that in appropriate situations officers may consider
driving the motorist to the nearest telephone, or assisting in arranging other
transportation. By Aappropriate situations,@ we mean motorists who are young,
elderly, disabled, with young children, or any situation where their safety may
be especially at risk. Therefore we recommend that PPB modify the Towing
General Order to address officer responsibilities in such situations, with
reasonable and manageable criteria.

IV. Policy Concern: Flexible Work Hours

In the Fourth Quarter 1994 Monitoring Report, PIIAC advisors reported on a
conduct complaint that revealed a divisional failure to adhere to the Bureau=s
timekeeping policy with respect to overtime or comp time. We recommended the
Bureau and Bureau managers review their timekeeping practices to ensure
compliance with the General Order. The Chief, in his written response, assured
us this would be done and added that Aunit managers and supervisors are expected
to monitor the accuracy and thoroughness of daily assignment/time records.@

In a citizen complaint monitored this past quarter, it was determined that
the officers had in fact been conducting personal business while on duty, albeit
a Aslow time.@ In this case, the complaint was appropriately sustained. One
officer commented in his interview that officers in his unit generally operate
with such flexibility because of the amount of overtime worked. The investigator
did not obtain additional information about this practice.

We therefore renew our recommendation that PPB ensure compliance with the
prevailing General Order regarding recording on and off-duty time.

ATTACHMENT A

IAD COMPLAINT CATEGORIES

1. Property: Allegation that money, property, evidence and other
valued items have been taken and not properly accounted for, receipted, or
placed in the Property Room.

2. Use of Force: Allegation of excessive or inappropriate physical or
deadly physical force (Refer to G.O. 314.00).

3. Conduct: Allegations of misconduct other than those more
specifically defined by another category, which tend to bring reproach or
discredit upon the Bureau or City of Portland.

4. Disparate Treatment: Allegations of treatment to an individual that
is different from the treatment of another because of